>>28467774 actually, swords are more often than not, pretty dull, it's acombination of WEIGHT and a edge that makes swords cut, not edge alone (because a sharp edge would also be a FRAGILE one, which is not a good thing when you whacking it against another hunk of metal), simple leather gloves would be enough to prevent a fighter from cutting his hands when fighting with the pommel (using it like light mace) or using the crossgaurd (using it as a war pick)
>>28469487 yep fighting with katanas that have been folded a thousand times is a noble and proud tradition unlike the western piggus who bullied me in high school a noble katana is a tool of justice to kill peasants, no fun allowed
There's swinging the fucking thing as hard as you can like a cleaver, and there's drawing it across your foe to slice. Neither of these require it to be particularly sharp but it must still be sharpened, yes.
If you have to fight someone in armor you want either a mace to smash it and kill their mobility, break the bones underneath etc or if you're lucky hit them in the helmet and give them a concussion and knock them over.... or like you've said, you want something short and pointy and maneuverable that fits through the gaps - visor is good, up under the armpit is good, but anywhere there's a gap is also good.
Or you can get a war pick and go straight through the armor but you better pray it doesn't get stuck or hit the slightest bit sideways because then you're done.
Swords were the shitty generalist weapons and are best compared to pistols. They worked best against unarmored opponents in close quarters, because then you've got better reach than most maces/axes/clubs and you can thrust with it as well. It can do a piddling/okay job subbing in for a mace or pick when you've got to fight someone that has worthwhile armor but it's really much better to have dedicated anti armor weaponry, like a flanged mace. They're also relatively expensive, being full metal.
The most important similarity between swords and pistols and the reasons swords are so big in the history books is that they were weapons of honor. They were nobles' weapons, for dueling each other over love and house and all the other high faulting things the inbred fucks got into conflicts over. And because the nobles had a monopoly on the written word, that's all we see today.
There were a lot of people that died because they decided to have a duel and the pickee went with swords. They proceeded to slice the shit out of each other (and especially their hands) because neither of them really knew what they were doing. One guy would finally finish the other guy off, and then that surviving guy would die three or four days of agony later from bleeding/infection/being a stupid shit.
>>28469952 When fighting a dude in full armor, your objective isn't to cut him, (because you can't,) but to stab him or inflict BFT. It's not exactly wrestling; the thing with wrestling is if you've beaten and exhausted a guy to the point where he's going to lie down and accept being stabbed in the face, you are likely not in very good shape yourself. Rather, 'heavy' armor isn't actually as heavy and restrictive as one might think; nor is it really so protective. You would be fairly limber, and would have practiced and drilled so that you could mount an attack quickly enough as to overwhelm an opponent; there being, again, little sense in trying to cut an armored opponent, much of the time you would be using your sword (if you were using it at all, instead of your preferred pollaxe) as a big metal stick with which you could grapple and strike, and make the occasional opportunistic thrust. And, for these purposes, grabbing the blade is a very effective means of giving you flexibility and leverage. So the end state is less so a dagger through an eye-socket, and more so a sword-point through the gap between, say, the chest and the shoulder armor which opens the axillary artery, or a spike of a crossguard delivering a wonderful little concussion. And then you could go back to chopping up unarmored peasants with your big, heavy, but semi-sharp sword.
>>28470112 >also on longer swords only the very end of the blade is sharpened
Yeah, if you're a Landsknecht and you've got a big honking Zweihander and the entire point of the blade is to knock all the enemy pikes out of the way so you can close on them without literally pushing your front four lines or so onto their pikes kebab style until they're useless.
Better the lower portion of the blade is dull so you can grab it for better leverage since that's most of what you're going to be doing with it
Assuming you mean you and your goofy friends here is how you do it :(
1. Get some people as "serious" as you are. 2. Obtain some heavy wooden sticks. 3. Beat the hell out of each other. 4. Let nature be your teacher. 5. If you die or get permanently disabled - you were just too weak
>>28470156 >Yeah, if you're a Landsknecht and you've got a big honking Zweihander and the entire point of the blade is to knock all the enemy pikes out of the way so you can close on them without literally pushing your front four lines or so onto their pikes kebab style until they're useless.
Interesting to see how ofthe this shitty meme is repeated over and over on /k/
Seriously guys, stay with the guns, swords are just not your thing.
>>28470194 >never use a low guard >then proceeds to teach Posta di Falcone >teaches one of the least versatile/most obscure Italian stances >while shitting on Tutta Porta di Ferro, Mezza Porta di Ferro, Dente de Zenghiar, all defensive stances that keep the sword below the waist line
It was an entertaining film, but shit on the fighting point of view.
>>28472048 >landsknecht Is a generic term for German mercenary soldiers, and Bidenhänder swords where rare, even rarer in battlefield use and breaking up pike formations was not their intent and hacking away pike heads is just pure bullshit.
>>28468851 >I like to think of it like how in anime you can shoot a blade of wind out of your sword, but we are too dumb to realize ancient tapestries were the equivalent the peasantry had back then.
I like to think of it that you were dropped on your head as a baby, which explains why you're possibly this fucking stupid.
Here's a hint. We have somewhere in the region of 3-400 different texts by maybe 200 different authors, in about 5-6 different countries, who all write in detail, not for "peasants", and in books on the techniques of sword fighting, not "tapestries". Those books are about the techniques to use to win judicial duels, and warfare, not the coloring books you like to use crayons in.
>>28472548 if course. for a TV programme, they should just tell the two combatants to do what the fuck they like, right, then make a programme around it.
its not like they were doing that specific technique to show what it was, and the specific choice of armoured and unarmoured, to depict what is drawn in the fechtbuch the documentary was about, were they?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.